Supreme Court Says No to ‘Intact’ Infanticide

Posted: Apr 23, 2007 12:00 AM
Supreme Court Says No to ‘Intact’ Infanticide

In 1996, registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer told the House Subcommittee on the Constitution about a partial birth abortion she’d witnessed.

A woman was six months pregnant with a baby diagnosed with Down Syndrome. She chose death for the child. Shafer testified that she saw the baby’s beating heart on the ultrasound monitor. The so-called doctor pulled the baby into the birth canal with forceps, partially delivering his body while leaving the head inside.

“The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall …The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.”

Shafer added that the abortionist pulled the baby out and threw him into a pan. She continued, “I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just ‘reflexes.’” Shafer, who is now pro-life, said two other partial birth abortion procedures she’d witnessed involved healthy women and healthy babies.

Congress attempted to end this gruesome procedure. (See illustrations) Both houses passed bans on partial birth abortion, but former President Bill Clinton twice vetoed the measures before President George Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban into law in 2003. Several federal judges ruled it unconstitutional and contended that it provided no exception for a woman’s health.

Last week, the Supreme Court disagreed, upholding the ban.

Despite the-sky-is-falling proclamations from feminists and mainstream media, women still may have legal abortions in this country. The court upheld a ban on a specific procedure – “intact dilation and extraction,” the procedure Brenda Pratt Shafer described. Pursuant to Roe v. Wade, women retain the “right” to have their babies killed, but the abortionist can’t extract a live baby and then kill him. He may rip the child apart in the womb first and remove body parts, or he may kill the baby in the womb with a poisonous solution, then remove the intact corpse.

You’d have to read the court’s opinion to understand the perverse distinction, because given mainstream media’s pro-infanticide bias, it isn’t clear. Attention feminists:


For fence-sitters, dismembering the fetus before extraction is considered less odious than extracting an intact baby, which is unmistakably, unequivocally human. That’s the key to the whole abortion debate. The baby must be dehumanized as much as possible, because even the most hardened abortion advocate knows that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings.

The ban is a compromise, but for those who take a hard line against all abortion (like me), there is no compromise. There is no difference between ripping a baby apart in the womb or delivering him intact but dead, killed by the abortionist’s hand.

The only silver lining in this dark cloud of cultural rot is that unlike Roe v. Wade, which is judge-made (and therefore unconstitutional) law, the partial birth abortion ban is backed by the will of the people, crafted by elected representatives. But I don’t need politicians or “we the people” to bolster my position on partial birth or any form of abortion. Even if I were the only person in the world who opposed it, it still would have a name: